has undertaken to give me lessons in rhetoric and logic, pp. 12 and 55, and is encouraged to think that he has forced one of his distinctions into my head, p. 55. But shortly after he seems discouraged again, and exclaims: " Will! (i. e. shall) I never be able to force this into the mind of my antagonist? If he would allow himself to perceive this distinction he would be delivered from much false reasoning. I will then try to make the thing plain to every child," p. 55. Surely this is exemplary patience

and condescension.

Mr. Carson also seems to be distressed with a strange appre hension that, after all, my reasonings will affect the public mind extensively. They are indeed folly to him, but all do not possess his "perspicacity." "Careless readers will imagine that there is wonderful acuteness in Mr. Beecher's observations," p. 36. 36. "Half learned people will think that this account of the phenomenon is an unparalleled effort of philosophy, and thousands will rely on it who cannot pretend to fathom it," p. 52. It must be painful to Mr. Carson to have so low a view of the capacities of other minds in comparison with his own, for he says, that "the smallest degree of perspicacity, will enable any one to see that his (my) philosophy is very shallow sophistry," p. 13.

However, out of compassion for the ignorant and those that are out of the way, he engages manfully in the work of exposing my sophistry, and, according to his own account, with very gratifying results. His grief at the necessity of dissecting me has passed away, and in rapture he exclaims: "I have now examined Mr. Beecher's arguments, and there is not a shadow of evidence that the word baptism signifies purification. I have met every thing that has a shadow even of plausibility, and completely dissected my antagonist. Am I not now entitled to send purify to the museum as a lusus naturæ, to be placed by the side of its brother pop?"

It would be cruel indeed to deny to Mr. Carson this small consolation as a reward for all his sufferings and labors. But I greatly fear that new conflicts await him before he can wear undisturbed the victor's crown. Such is Mr. Carson's rhetoric.

Let us now briefly consider its influence. On a certain class of minds it will produce revulsion and disgust. Can that be a true cause, they will exclaim, that needs to be defended by such weapons? Are these the teachings of the Spirit of God? Is this the meekness and gentleness of Christ? I will do the ho

nor to my Baptist brethren to believe that there are many, very many of them who can feel no sympathy in such things. Their own spirit, their own style of writing, forbids the idea. Nothing of this kind have I ever seen in the writings of Professor Ripley, or Professor Chase, or President Sears. I do not, indeed, agree with them in opinion. But in any discussion with them I should confidently expect to find in them the honor and magnanimity of gentlemen, and the meekness and gentleness. of Christ; and I rejoice to believe that those of the Baptists who sympathize with such men as these, are not few, and that their influence is not small; and until they disavow it, I will do them the honor to believe that their deep dislike of the spirit of Mr. Carson's reply, is the real reason that it was not republished in this country. When I hear them state that they approve the spirit of that work I will believe that they do, but never till then.

But the moral effects of Mr. Carson's reply, and of all his writings that I have seen, on another class of minds, I do fear. Novices, easily puffed up with pride, and predisposed to arrogant assumptions of superior intellectual power and to contempt of their opponents; and all violent and heated partisans will find Mr. Carson's rhetoric exactly to their taste. To use it requires no meekness, no forbearance, no humility, no aid of the Holy Spirit. The carnal mind will readily receive Mr. Carson's seed and bring forth an abundant crop. And partisan Christians, in whom the flesh is strong and the spirit weak, will come under its full power. Nor is this power small. It may be seen at this hour in the style of a certain class of Baptist writers in all parts of our land. There is in them a lofty tone, and a sprit of contemptuous invective and of fierce attack, that distinctly characterize the Carsonian school; and even in Christian newspapers we read of scalping their antagonists. This to be sure is an improvement on Mr. Carson's favorite figure of dissection, but the father of such a school must not be surprised if his children excel him: for the field opened is boundless; and such contemptuous expressions as "baby sprinklers," &c., will soon not be deemed sufficiently spirited and energetic to meet the exigencies of the case, and each new combatant will resort to the boundless stores of the Carsonian school.

If this were the first instance in which Mr. Carson had dealt in this style of rhetoric, I should regard it less, but it is not. It pervades all his writings that I have seen. Says an English author (Andrew Carmichael), "If they have not wholly and

to a point embraced his views, they are paradoxical, foolish, arrogant, untaught, impious, wicked, silly, presumptuous Protestant theologians; supporters of a very unholy cause; crude theorists, Pharisees and blasphemers. Yet, the person who can heap these epithets upon others, can venture to make this acknowledgment of himself:-My way is to endeavor to find what the Scriptures say, and to this I make every human dogma to bend. I will not allow philosophy herself to prate on the things of God." If Mr. Carson should plead that he was writ ing against Unitarianism, or loose views of inspiration, as his justification, I have only to ask: When was not the cloak of zeal for God and the truth thrown over a bad spirit? This is no way to check error. It will confirm twenty Unitarians or skeptics, where it convinces one. For they will ask: Can that be the truth that breeds such a spirit?

Nor can any denomination long tolerate such a spirit in its writers with impunity. It may assume the form of zeal for God and the truth. It may delude multitudes with the idea that they are especially designated by God for the great work of defending the gospel. But this fire is not from the altar of God. It is strange fire. And let those who offer it take heed lest fire go out from the Lord and devour them. And if the leaders of the Baptist denomination in this country have any regard to their own moral soundness, let them stand between the living and the dead, and pray that the plague may be stayed; and everywhere meet a spirit so unholy, with stern and emphatic rebuke. It may be of great use in rallying a party for a partisan warfare. It may for a time augment sectarian power. But it is no preparation for the coming of the Son of God. It is no preparation for the baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire.

§. 45. Mr. Carson's logic. Preliminary remarks.

We have considered Mr. Carson's rhetoric. Let us now look at his logic. In doing this I meet with two embarrassments: 1. His work has not been republished in this country. Hence I shall direct my attention at present mainly to principles, as my readers can better comprehend these than details. 2. I have already virtually answered nearly all of it in my last two numbers, though not having seen the work itself, I did not aim to answer it, and hence the application of the various parts of my discussion to Mr. Carson's positions may need to be pointed

out. But as I have not room to attempt this, I shall trust to the intelligence of my readers to do that work.

All of Mr. Carson's reply may be considered as relating either-1, To principles; or, 2, To fundamental arguments; or, 3, To subordinate points; the truth or falsehood of which is of some consequence, but not essential to the main question. Mr. Carson seems to labor very hard to accumulate upon me errors of all sorts, for the purpose, it would seem, of destroying my reputation as a scholar, by repeated charges of folly, stupidity, nonsense, etc. Often the errors charged are upon minute points, not at all essential in the decision of the main question. But they give him a fine opportunity of setting forth my amazing want of perspicacity. Such charges of error are a kind of logical mosquitoes. They have a sting; they irritate; but they have no fatal power; and are so numerous and minute that there is no time to pursue them, and little is really gained by their destruction. In the refutation of such charges, I shall not waste the time of my readers. If the main points are decided in my favor, they will die a natural death. I shall therefore first consider the question of principle, and then look at the fundamental arguments in the case.

Careful reasoners are wont to examine principles, and state definitions clearly at the outset. Mr. Carson ought to have done this. I stated clearly and fully my principles at the outset, presented definitely the point to be proved, and the nature of the proof required. Does Mr. Carson carefully examine this part of my argument? Not at all. He merely alludes to it for the sake of saying that he has no objection to much of it, and that I borrowed all the truth of it from him; and then passes on to his attack upon my examples. Does he anywhere. fairly and fully meet and discuss my principles? Not at all. Let me then begin by considering both his principles and mine.

§. 46. Mr. Carson's system, and canons.

I will therefore now endeavor to do what Mr. Carson has nowhere done, to collect the scattered fragments of his system, and to present them in one view; for, above all things, it is essential to have clear views of the points actually in debate. Mr. Carson's system then involves four parts.

1. To establish clearly that Banrio actually has the sense immerse in many instances. 2. To assume a canon of proof as to a secondary sense. 3. To provide a set of principles for

SECOND SERIES, VOL. IX. NO. I.

6

testing all alleged secondary senses, to see if they cannot possibly be reduced to the primary sense. 4. If it is possible, then to overrule all probabilities of a secondary sense, by what he calls the testimony of the word ßantico, of which the primary sense has been established. With the results of this process he is remarkably well satisfied. In his preface, he says, "My dissertation on the import of the word fanrico I submit with confidence to the truly learned. If I have not settled that controversy, there is not truth in axioms." Mr. Carson has chosen to disregard the advice of an ancient king: "Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off." Whether he has done wisely in so doing, the result will show. Let us examine his process a little more in detail.

In establishing the first point, Mr. Carson has laid out much needless labor. No one, so far as I know, ever denied it. Yet Mr. Carson, in his work on baptism, has accumulated passage on passage as if the whole world denied that panrico ever means to immerse, till he thinks his position impregnable. Having thus firmly established what no one denies, Mr. Carson next lays down his canon as to proving a secondary sense. P. 106, "I will here reduce my observations on this point to the form of a canon. When a thing is proved by sufficient evidence, no objection from difficulties can be admitted as decisive, except they involve an impossibility." The "thing" in this case is of course the primary sense of ßantia. For though the canon is general in form, yet it is made for a specific case. But the canon in its general form looks plausible, because it includes unlike cases, and is true of some and not of others. If a particular fact is proved by sufficient evidence, as for example, the being of a God, or the inspiration of the Scriptures, we are not to reject that fact on account of difficulties. So if the meaning of a word in a particular passage is fairly proved, we are not to reject it in that passage, because of difficulties. But proof of the meaning of a word in one passage, is not of course proof of its meaning in another; because the meanings of all words are liable to change. Now, in all places where the meaning immerse has been proved by Mr. Carson to belong to Barrio, I do not deny that it so belongs. But this is not proof of its meaning in all other cases. Its meaning in each case must be decided for itself. Mr. Carson's canon then, so far as it applies to the case in hand, is merely this: where one meaning of a word has been proved in certain cases, no difficulties can be admitted as decisive against retaining it in